mudfandomcom-20200213-history
MUD Wiki talk:About
Suggestion I suggest that we emphasize that the Wiki is not intended as a venue to advertise muds per se, but instead as a repository of historical and current factual information. --RaphKoster 17:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC) :I want to see a liberal policy, but obviously people can go too far. I would say that so long as it stays on one page, it's OK. When someone starts an expansive family of pages for a MUD that has few players, or little history or significance, or is not yet open, that might be the bright line (crossing the line). Fred Talk 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ::I disagree. The wiki should have a mission, a niche purpose. This wiki can't be everything to everyone. Nothing can be. To be successful, this wiki should be focused. "To preserve and share the legacy of" sounds like the ideal direction. MorganRamsay 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC) :::I would agree with that for its succinctness, but I think it leaves a gray area I think is worth including. I'd like to see actual design decisions, and their consequences, included. Stuff like the LambdaMOO bit, when the administrators tried to withdraw from governance but were demanded back. I want that kind of thing to be explicitly included from the beginning, though I know it might make some bits too inclusive. Basically, I'd like to see this wiki usable as a newbie designer's resource. MichaelChui 03:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Proposed guideline elements Given the (barely started) discussion above, it seemed like it might be good to have a proposal on the table. So here's one. The MUDWiki exists in order to * Document MUDs, MOOs, MUSHes, MUCKs, and related software ** with special attention towards preserving the history of this genre of virtual world ** and special attention towards tracing notable and significant developments of interest to designers, developers, researchers, and hobbyists * Secondarily, document parallel and historically significant virtual worlds whose history intersects that of MUDs ** For example, Monster, Sceptre of Goth, Gemstone, Aradath, and the like are not technically derived from MUD1 * Document key critical, technical, anthropological, cultural, and social terms and practices ** The intent is to ensure preservation of key vocabulary from mud history, such as Toading, Immortal, Sacrifice, and Digging ** And to provide for entry points around concepts (examples might be Presence, Scripting, Persistence, Disinhibition The MUDWiki does not exist in order to * Document MMORPGs ** except insofar as there is relevant and valuable knowledge regarding the intersection and connection between MMORPGs and MUDs (examples might include tracing antecedents of specific MMORPG design elements -- jumping from this Wiki to the MMORPG Wiki should happen at a logical breakpoint). * Advertise specific muds. ** In particular, deletion of historical information in favor of current state is discouraged; please try to preserve historical data! * Serve as a repository of non-significant logs Questions * What are the boundaries of the field? ** Graphics seems like a poor boundary ** Commercial operation seems like a poor boundary ** Habitat and early commercial virtual worlds such as Island of Kesmai are tangentially related ** What about PLATO? * Notability ** Heh, here we go. ;) Do we allow any and every mud? Personally, I would say yes. * Citations ** We do want some standard here, even if the rules are looser than Wikipedia's. * Can we mirror? ** Boy, am I scared of link rot. --RaphKoster 03:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC) : I was thinking about notability criteria earlier. Should we include my Lands of Aetheryn (or similar projects) which was never released and would not have offered anything unique or substantial except hopefully original fiction? I don't think so. "Any and every" is too inclusive. There should be a core criteria that every project is required to satisfy to maintain inclusion. MorganRamsay 04:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ::Mirroring sources creates copyright problems. What I do is keep a copy on my own computer for reference, that that has a limit. As to Lands of Aetheryn hard to say... I guess the test is that someone finds it worthwhile to mention. As to citations, use them, even if you have to cite yourself. Fred Talk 06:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ::I think the criterion ought to be the ability to produce a substantial article in line with the purpose of the wiki. That's probably easily exploitable, but it's a start? Specifically excluding MMORPGs seems like an interesting choice; I can't quite get comfortable with it. MichaelChui 08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Categories? So we hav Codebases and Acronyms. Seems like we need a MUDs or Worlds one, a People one, and likely more. Should let this grow organically, or put some thought into it? --RaphKoster 07:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC) :I put in codebases because it was an obvious way to categorize everything, and I'm trying to figure out how to categorize (or simply not categorize) custom codebases like Simutronics' stuff. It would probably be worth putting in one for MUDs and one for People as top level categories. MichaelChui 08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ::The wiki way is growing organically, but that means every editor has a plan and carries it out, and that discussion occurs regarding any conflicts that develop. Articles can be in more than one category. Fred Talk 14:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)